Tower Block Fire
Comments
-
Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:So if someone steals your bike, it is only a crime if you report it?
Seriously?
Not sure what you're getting at. It's a crime regardless (because there are laws against it), but unless you plan on taking matters into your own hands, then reporting it to the police is the usual - and most obvious - response...
Not sure what I'm getting at? Did you not just post
As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.
I've highlighted the salient bit.0 -
My, my, this has run on, has it not? Can't we just agree that d!cks gonna be d!cks and leave it at that?0
-
Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:So if someone steals your bike, it is only a crime if you report it?
Seriously?
Not sure what you're getting at. It's a crime regardless (because there are laws against it), but unless you plan on taking matters into your own hands, then reporting it to the police is the usual - and most obvious - response...
Not sure what I'm getting at? Did you not just post
As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.
I've highlighted the salient bit.
Maybe I should have said 'investigated in case an offence has been committed'. Presumably the police and CPS will decide if any offence has been committed and whether it is appropriate to pursue it.0 -
The police investigate reports of crime, yes. But no investigation can alter actions of the past can it? Actions either constitute a crime or they don't. Subsequent investigations or any actions come to that can't alter previous events.
The police/CPS can advise you whether any actions constitute a crime. To commit any crime, you have to be in contravention of a piece of legislation and meet all the requirements of every element of that legislation.
An action is either a crime or it isn't.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:For those on here who still think the Bonfire 5 committed a public order offence in their back garden, do you think that if the video had not been uploaded, any offence would have been committed?
As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.
So if someone steals your bike, it is only a crime if you report it?
Seriously?
Hardly a comparison. It's a supposed public order offence. If there is no one around to offend how is it a crime? If you follow your logic every time you get naked in your house you're guilty of indecent exposure0 -
SJH76 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:For those on here who still think the Bonfire 5 committed a public order offence in their back garden, do you think that if the video had not been uploaded, any offence would have been committed?
As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.
So if someone steals your bike, it is only a crime if you report it?
Seriously?
Hardly a comparison. It's a supposed public order offence. If there is no one around to offend how is it a crime? If you follow your logic every time you get naked in your house you're guilty of indecent exposure
I was following up on Imposters bit of nonsense. He posted:_As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.
As regards getting naked, I suggest you go back and read the posts again. At no stage have I said anything about nudity being an offence. That was Imposter.
It was me who said that no crime was committed if nobody was there to be offended.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:The police investigate reports of crime, yes. But no investigation can alter actions of the past can it? Actions either constitute a crime or they don't. Subsequent investigations or any actions come to that can't alter previous events.
The police/CPS can advise you whether any actions constitute a crime. To commit any crime, you have to be in contravention of a piece of legislation and meet all the requirements of every element of that legislation.
An action is either a crime or it isn't.
Which is exactly why the 'offenders' have only been arrested on 'suspicion' of certain offences - and have not been charged with any yet. That's how it works...0 -
Ballysmate wrote:SJH76 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:For those on here who still think the Bonfire 5 committed a public order offence in their back garden, do you think that if the video had not been uploaded, any offence would have been committed?
As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.
So if someone steals your bike, it is only a crime if you report it?
Seriously?
Hardly a comparison. It's a supposed public order offence. If there is no one around to offend how is it a crime? If you follow your logic every time you get naked in your house you're guilty of indecent exposure
I was following up on Imposters bit of nonsense. He posted:_As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.
As regards getting naked, I suggest you go back and read the posts again. At no stage have I said anything about nudity being an offence. That was Imposter.
It was me who said that no crime was committed if nobody was there to be offended.
Erm, I never said you did. It's a comparison of the logic to suggest a crime is only commited if there is someone watching the act. If you say something it's only offensive if there is actually someone around to be offended. It's not the words themselves it's the way a subject reacts to them. Such as being nude in public is an offence but only if someone sees you to be offended in the first place otherwise how can there be an offence?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:
As regards getting naked, I suggest you go back and read the posts again. At no stage have I said anything about nudity being an offence. That was Imposter.
It was me who said that no crime was committed if nobody was there to be offended.
I didn't say it was an offence though. I said you would most likely get arrested for it (assuming you were seen/reported). The arrest would be on the 'suspicion' of committing an offence - which seems to be the bit you aren't grasping particularly well...0 -
SJH76 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:SJH76 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:For those on here who still think the Bonfire 5 committed a public order offence in their back garden, do you think that if the video had not been uploaded, any offence would have been committed?
As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.
So if someone steals your bike, it is only a crime if you report it?
Seriously?
Hardly a comparison. It's a supposed public order offence. If there is no one around to offend how is it a crime? If you follow your logic every time you get naked in your house you're guilty of indecent exposure
I was following up on Imposters bit of nonsense. He posted:_As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.
As regards getting naked, I suggest you go back and read the posts again. At no stage have I said anything about nudity being an offence. That was Imposter.
It was me who said that no crime was committed if nobody was there to be offended.
Erm, I never said you did. It's a comparison of the logic to suggest a crime is only commited if there is someone watching the act. If you say something it's only offensive if there is actually someone around to be offended. It's not the words themselves it's the way a subject reacts to them. Such as being nude in public is an offence but only if someone sees you to be offended in the first place otherwise how can there be an offence?
The sentence that elicited my response isit's only an offence if it gets reported
which is utter nonsense. My comparison to a stolen bike was designed to show it as such.
To commit a public order act of causing offence, harassment does require a victim. I have said as such. That is why I said the Bonfire 5 were not guilty of an offence as nobody present was offended.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Jez mon wrote:It's interesting that this has generated quite a bit of traction on this forum. But the Count Dankula, Nazi Pug video seemed to go by unnoticed.?
First thoughts are there was more of a case to prosecute there. His video was intended for public viewing and he openly named a religious minority whereas in the tower video the racial element has largely been inferred by others. It was hate crime he got done for rather than a public order offence wasn't it?
On the other hand there has been a tradition of comedy hitlers - Freddie Starr for example - though whether any of them would have been allowed to shout "kill the Jews" as a major part of their act I doubt.
That's true, I guess there is a difference in the intended viewing.
Joke wise I would argue that the object of count dankulas ridicule were the Nazis, whereas the people in the video seem to be targeting the victims. I'd argue that neither are especially funny, but I don't think that should be a crime...i think it would sum up Britain well if these 5 guys are the only people who end up being prosecuted as a result of the disaster. Hopefully that won't be the case.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
As regards getting naked, I suggest you go back and read the posts again. At no stage have I said anything about nudity being an offence. That was Imposter.
It was me who said that no crime was committed if nobody was there to be offended.
I didn't say it was an offence though. I said you would most likely get arrested for it (assuming you were seen/reported). The arrest would be on the 'suspicion' of committing an offence - which seems to be the bit you aren't grasping particularly well...
That's not what you said though is it.t's the same set of laws that enable you to walk around your house stark naked, but will get you arrested as soon as you go out your front door..
I am perfectly au fait with the concept of arrest under suspicion btw.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:The sentence that elicited my response isit's only an offence if it gets reported
which is utter nonsense. My comparison to a stolen bike was designed to show it as such.
Did you miss the bit where I clarified that?Ballysmate wrote:To commit a public order act of causing offence, harassment does require a victim. I have said as such. That is why I said the Bonfire 5 were not guilty of an offence as nobody present was offended.
People being 'present' is not the issue. It ceased being the issue as soon as it was made public by someone uploading it to the internet (or twitter, or wherever).
Either way, if it calms you down, it's worth reminding yourself that nobody has been found 'guilty' of anything yet. As far as I'm aware, nobody has even been charged yet, either.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:
That's not what you said though is it.t's the same set of laws that enable you to walk around your house stark naked, but will get you arrested as soon as you go out your front door..
I am perfectly au fait with the concept of arrest under suspicion btw.
Well, it is what I said. You seem to be under the impressions that I said that 'leaving your house naked' was an offence - which it potentially is, although I didn't actually say it. All I said was that it would get you arrested - as you can see from the bit where you have quoted me above. Really not sure what you are arguing about.0 -
You seem to be under the impressions that I said that 'leaving your house naked' was an offence -
That is exactly what you said.People being 'present' is not the issue. It ceased being the issue as soon as it was made public by someone uploading it to the internet (or twitter, or wherever).
If you look back I said that any offences were committed by whoever uploaded the vid. You disagreed, sayingThe offenders were the people in the video comitting the alleged offences. Not whoever filmed it,0 -
Ballysmate wrote:You seem to be under the impressions that I said that 'leaving your house naked' was an offence -
That is exactly what you said.
I think you need to go back and read what I actually did say, because I simply did not say it was an 'offence'. I said it would get you arrested. This is the second time I've corrected you on this. Anyone can go back and read what I wrote - apart from you it seems..Ballysmate wrote:If you look back I said that any offences were committed by whoever uploaded the vid. You disagreed, sayingThe offenders were the people in the video comitting the alleged offences. Not whoever filmed it,
Good selective quoting. I also said that the uploader could also be liable, depending on the nature of any charges. You are either deliberately ignoring complete sections of my comments, or simply not seeing them, or you're on a wind up..0 -
I can only quote what you post.
You say as soon as you leave your front door naked you will get arrested.
It may get you arrested' dependant on circumstances and intent. But that isn't what you said is it? There has to be intent.
You are agreeing that the uploader could be the one committing any offence but still seem to think that the people at the party were guilty although afaik nobody from the party was offended.
Please show me the Mens Rea of the Bonfire 5 as they didn't sem to offend those present and did not film the vid.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:I can only quote what you post.
You say as soon as you leave your front door naked you will get arrested.
It may get you arrested' dependant on circumstances and intent. But that isn't what you said is it? There has to be intent.
Earlier, you said that you understood the point about 'arrest on suspicion' - but now you just proved that you don't. If the police find you naked in the street there's a good chance they will arrest you, unless you are clearly displaying signs of mental illness - in which case you will probably get sectioned instead. However, let's go the 'arrest' route. Once arrested, the police will probably then take time to establish the reasons for your public nudity in order to see if there was any intent. They may at that point decide to charge you with one of the offences mentioned earlier, or they may decide to release you without charge. Who knows. Maybe give it a try and let us know...Ballysmate wrote:You are agreeing that the uploader could be the one committing any offence but still seem to think that the people at the party were guilty although afaik nobody from the party was offended.
Please show me the Mens Rea of the Bonfire 5 as they didn't sem to offend those present and did not film the vid.
I haven't said anyone was 'guilty' of anything. I'm really not sure what you're talking about. If any charges do follow - and if any of them relate to 'hate crimes' or 'hate speech' or similar, then the uploader could potentially be charged with dissemination/communication of the video. I've already said that.
'Mens rea' is a cool phrase - but probably has no value in this particular case, so you can stop saying it. I've also said that the people in the vid only became liable for prosecution when the video was uploaded - not before - but you obviously missed that as well. Do me a favour - go back and read the last couple of pages again - properly this time.0 -
I take it you have never heard of Actus Reus and Mens Rea.?
Little clue. They are legal terms which constitute an offence.0 -
Imposter wrote:
People being 'present' is not the issue. It ceased being the issue as soon as it was made public by someone uploading it to the internet (or twitter, or wherever).
Either way, if it calms you down, it's worth reminding yourself that nobody has been found 'guilty' of anything yet. As far as I'm aware, nobody has even been charged yet, either.
I know I said this earlier but as it seems quite key, if the Guardian is to be believed the uploading to the internet is irrelevant if those committing the act had a reasonable belief that their actions were not going to be shared in that way.
I'm sure we've all been at gatherings where people video something, we don't generally expect that to end up on youtube so at face value the police are overstepping the mark on this one.
It is now reported they've searched the house including the bins and have taken away bag loads of material and interviewed neighbours too so they are certainly pursuing it despite what appears to be a backlash against their involvement.
I dunno, to me it seems this is just a sick joke very much like people might joke about 9/11 or any other tragedy. If you want to have a topical theme for your bonfire leaving aside considerations of decency Grenfell is the obvious choice.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Imposter wroteI haven't said anyone was 'guilty' of anything. I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
Really?
Imposter wroteThe offenders were the people in the video comitting the alleged offences.0 -
This sounds suspiciously like arresting someone because you don't like them, then casting around to see if you can find something to charge them with.Imposter wrote:...the 'offenders' have only been arrested on 'suspicion' of certain offences - and have not been charged with any yet. That's how it works...0 -
It's all a bit of a firestorm in a holocaust.0
-
Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wroteI haven't said anyone was 'guilty' of anything. I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
Really?
Imposter wroteThe offenders were the people in the video comitting the alleged offences.
Yes, really. You know what ‘alleged’ means, right? Pretty sure I didn’t say anyone was ‘guilty’
0 -
It can’t be a ‘public order offence’ if the incident didn’t occur in public. However the waters are muddied by whether or not putting footage of the incident on a publicly accessible media platform constitutes ‘in public’. That’s unprecedented / not legally tested as yet, as far as I’m aware. This also applies to whether the aggrieved party could be considered to have been ‘present’ or not. Then there’s the technicality of whether the individual who was responsible for downloading the footage is liable, or the publisher. This case could pay for a lot of Lawyer’s Christmases. As for the “little Ninja” comment being ‘racist’ well legally, Ninja isn’t considered a ‘race’, so unless the comment was qualified with the addition of a slur against a recognised race, that won’t stick either.0
-
bompington wrote:
This sounds suspiciously like arresting someone because you don't like them, then casting around to see if you can find something to charge them with.Imposter wrote:...the 'offenders' have only been arrested on 'suspicion' of certain offences - and have not been charged with any yet. That's how it works...
To me, it just sounds like the police following up on a complaint and following SOPs...0 -
SJH76 wrote:Do you honestly believe telling a joke should be a crime regardless of the subject?
I didn't say telling jokes should be a crime, I was just pointing out that if it's deemed to be a public order offence then it's a crime whether we like it or not. I think in some circumstances telling a joke could be a crime, not in the context that you gave though really. As there is a huge grey area between making a joke or just saying something unsavoury masked as a joke it's not unreasonable to take into account the impact on the people who it was aimed at, along with the intent behind it.0 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46112026
This sums up some of the points. If you went to the Grenfell inquiry and told jokes about it to the victims then you would probably show intent and be committing an offence.0 -
Imposter wrote:
To me, it just sounds like the police following up on a complaint and following SOPs...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section ... r_Act_1986
Unless the information in that link is wrong it seems fairly nailed on that a public order offence isn't going to stick so arresting them and carrying out a search of the premises surely can't be justified as standard operating procedure.
Beyond that how does what they've done differ from someone making sick jokes about any tragedy ?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
HaydenM wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46112026
This sums up some of the points. If you went to the Grenfell inquiry and told jokes about it to the victims then you would probably show intent and be committing an offence.
Of course the real problem is that it's very hard to move these days without the chance that it is recorded on some device. What's more, the record is open to all kinds of use by editing or choosing a context to add whatever spin the propagator chooses. After that it can 'go viral'.
Always been like that to some degree what with newspapers and reporters but now we can all do it and with anonymity newspapers, reporters and editors don't have. And once it's out there it's always out there.
It wasn't like that in 1986 (date of the public order act).0
